Poker and craps are not Tweedledum and Tweedledee

The difference between a crapshooter and a poker player is not a matter of taste in generally similar games. Poker is a game of nearly infinite subtlety and complexity, in which money is managed across a constantly changing information landscape as deep as the psychology and perspicacity of all the players. Smart poker players are much better at it than dumb ones, though smart in the usual sense is not enough to be good at it. Some people are bored with poker and can’t concentrate on it well enough to succeed, but not because it’s beneath their intelligence. The nearest analogy is investing in securities, or perhaps commanding small units in combat, except for the team aspect of the latter and the impersonal dimension of the former.

Craps, like roulette and a slot machine, is a simpleminded exercise whose players pay a fee for a particular kind of reptile-brain excitement. It is not social, and no player can change the odds on the next move, which are a set of nine numbers that never change (though more complicated side bets are possible, they also depend on a fixed small set of probabilities). There is no such thing as being good at craps, and no such thing as being a steady winner. Anyone for whom it is a preferred pastime strikes me as a person scratching a psychological itch that’s best understood as a character or intelligence defect. I am genuinely appalled to learn that this idiotic fidgeting absorbs McCain for any significant time.

Comments

I think it's the difference between a gambler and a person who takes calculated risks, the very definition of a game of chance is that no amount of information can affect the outcome, which is entirely random. A gambler who goes with his gut doesn't rely on information to make the best decisions.